Gislewiki talk:Resources
Track attribution A follow up to my entry in the talk page for the E-Pipe track: Should we set a more strict set of rules for what release a track is released on? I'm thinking of something like this: * If it is released on an Album then it belongs to that album, and should be listed as released on that album both in the track article and in the all tracks list. * If it is released on an online EP it belongs to that EP * If it is released first on an EP then on an album it is tagged both in the track article (eg: two infoboxes or some combination) * if a track is first released as a single (as wih Redrum and The Ultimate Fix and then an album the track belongs to the album, even if the single is a physical release (none of them exsist i think..?) * If it is first a web/blog release then an album/EP release it belongs to the Album/EP (this applies to web extras too) * The Vaults count as Albums, hence, all tracks previously blog/web/web extra released tracks now belongs to the vault (and is listed as such in the all tracks list and in the track article * If a track is first released on an album such as the Port Azur sampler (that is, a non GMM-only album) it belongs to the first GMM-only album it was released on * If a track is first released on an LP (such as the old E-Pipe and never released Loungemeister LP) it belongs to that one OR it belongs to the digital versions of those released in access all areas (not quite sure here..) * All tracks that belongs to several releases has a list in the track article listing all ways it is released (Album, Single, Web, Blog, Physical LP, web extras etc) * The identity Track is defined by track name (that is Loungemeister and Loungemeister (alternate version is directing to the same Track page. The track article then lists all alternate versions This may require a bit of clean up on some of the track articles, a huge clean-up in the all tracks article and the creation of articles for the LP's and such.. But I still think this will make the wiki a bit less messy, the all tracks article is rather complicated atm... Any thoughts on this? --Atlefren 09:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC) :Otherwise fine, but as track articles tend to be of the short persuation, several infoboxes just to list two appearances would be an overkill. We could add an "Later appearances" parameter to the track infobox, where we could list releases the track has been on before, while still remaining the first release color scheme with the Type parameter. How about that? --Sysrq868 09:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC) ::Great idea, I was thinking along that line for a moment, but seems like I never wrote it. One infobox pr track should be enough, the "Later apperances" is a great way to handle the issue. Now we just gotta do all the cleaning up.. :) --Atlefren 10:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Vocals title We have so far used "Lyrics" as the unambiguous headline for the vocals appearing in a track. While I agree that certain tracks consisting only of movie samples (Trigger 22, Necrotica...) do not contain lyrics, I think "Sample text" is not the best headline either; it could be confused to text acting as a sample for a font, for example. Any suggestions for a better headline? --Sysrq868 09:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC) :Agreed, "Sample text" doesn't sound good. But in the spirit of wiki-editing i went ahead and made a change. Will have to think a bit about what the headline should be.. We could ofcourse stick with lyrics, but I think it sounds wrong in the context of movie samples.. --Atlefren 10:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)